In the article the state : "Airport officials expanded the Highway to 8500 feet in order to make room for the large jet and in hopes of more aircraft of this kind to come."

Highway? How many airports use the local highway for their major jets?

"Ladies and Gentlemen, I would like to be the first to welcome you to LA. We will be taxing for a while from the 405 to the gate. Traffic right now is pretty bad, so it could take as much as an hour or so."

As an editor, I'm sorely tempted to put out a challenge to any non-journalist on this board to write a short news story on an aviation subject of my choosing (an aviation topic would mean no-one here would be able to make excuses). And then I'd enjoy reading the efforts from the "know alls" - I'd be astonished if any of them made the grade I'd deem acceptable.

Quoting Backfire (Reply 2):As an editor, I'm sorely tempted to put out a challenge to any non-journalist on this board to write a short news story on an aviation subject of my choosing (an aviation topic would mean no-one here would be able to make excuses). And then I'd enjoy reading the efforts from the "know alls" - I'd be astonished if any of them made the grade I'd deem acceptable.

I believe larger point of this thread was to ask why is it that media reports on the topic of aviation often have gross factual errors.

The rest of your post seems to suggest that you expect better journalistic writing output from professionals than casual users of this forum. How is this worthy of discussion? Should professional football players be surprised when they handily defeat the local high school team? Would you pat yourself on the back if you kicked ass in the special olympics?

Quoting Molykote (Reply 3):I believe larger point of this thread was to ask why is it that media reports on the topic of aviation often have gross factual errors.

It only seems that way because people here pay more attention to aviation stories. Aviation is no more susceptible to error in reporting than any other subject.

Quoting Molykote (Reply 3):The rest of your post seems to suggest that you expect better journalistic writing output from professionals than casual users of this forum.

Aviation reporting by the media is often criticised on this forum. Fair enough. But while the subject of media errors is a valid discussion topic, it seems to me that it's only raised so that some smart-arse or other can point a finger and feel smug and superior.

If someone wants to talk about the finer points of journalism, and show a genuine understanding of the difficulties associated with reporting, then I'd welcome the debate. If they're just out to demonstrate their ignorance through journo-bashing, they'd be better off performing a search and venting their spleen on the multitude of similar threads in the archive.

I simply wondered whether those who think it's easy to report on aviation have actually ever tried. Aviation journalists are hard to come by. Perhaps there's some undiscovered talent out there.

Now that is just plain stupidity. Even the average Joe knows why they did that. I occasionally see good aviation stories with correct info or minor mistakes, but for one good one there is always 20 bad ones it seems like.

Well I believe it all is coming to an end. Oh well, I guess we are gonna pretend.

Quoting Molykote (Reply 3):I believe larger point of this thread was to ask why is it that media reports on the topic of aviation often have gross factual errors.

Exactly the point. Things like, a 747 having 2 engines and showing a picture of a DC-10.

Quoting Backfire (Reply 2):As an editor, I'm sorely tempted to put out a challenge to any non-journalist on this board to write a short news story on an aviation subject of my choosing

Congrats on being an editor. I know a few editors and writers. I wish I could write. But, when I do write something important, others check it out. They look for errors. Of course, they aren't editors, so they miss things and so do I.

Quoting Backfire (Reply 4):But while the subject of media errors is a valid discussion topic, it seems to me that it's only raised so that some smart-arse or other can point a finger and feel smug and superior.

The intent wasn't to finger point as much as is was to bring things up. Maybe have a laugh?

I saw a story about UA hiring some flight attendants yesterday and they were showing a UA 727 taking off on the screen. I also recently saw something about AA and they were showing old pictures of their 727s for a recent story!

Quoting KhenleyDIA (Reply 8):The intent wasn't to finger point as much as is was to bring things up. Maybe have a laugh?

I still cringe when I recall one of the TV folks in Washington, D.C. (in the immediate aftermath of our losing Air Florida 90 at DCA) stating that the reason that the 737 had crashed was that there had been so much snow and ice on the runway that the aircraft couldn't get any traction...

I don't thing the hard drives on A.net's servers are big enough to hold all the gaffes that have occurred over time...

Quoting Backfire (Reply 4):Aviation reporting by the media is often criticised on this forum. Fair enough. But while the subject of media errors is a valid discussion topic, it seems to me that it's only raised so that some smart-arse or other can point a finger and feel smug and superior.

I don't think the issue is superiority but rather a desire to see one's profession or other interest accurately represented.

Most of the time the larger issue is not the errors in and of themselves - The larger problem is why exactly we see such gross reporting errors. In my view it is because the reporters are attempting to produce sensationalism rather than report the news. Nobody really cares if a reporter mistakenly represents an RB211 engine as a Trent.

When a reporter presents leading questions to Joe-six-pack and runs with the results then we have a serious problem. I have personally been interviewed many times (and no, I don't look for the opportunity). I make deliberate attempts to eliminate ambiguity in my statements and to provide accurate perspective. My comments are either never used or grossly misquoted.

Roommates and friends of mine have been journalists. Although I certainly respect the good ones, I have no problem making the generalization that the majority I have observed in the work process are irresponsible - often making efforts to shape the forum and events in which they are working rather than taking only pictures and leaving only footprints.

Yesterday, I saw a program on Discovery about AA flight 11. Discovery claimed that it was the most correct reenactment of that flight ever made. But when they showed pictures of the outside of the airplane, they alternated between pics of a 762, 738, 752, 772 and A300!

A few months ago I saw a DVD of 007 "Die Another Day," with comments made by the director and Brosnan. Both of them claimed that the Antonov 124 used in the movie was the largest airplane in the world.

Regular news services could care less about the salient details of aviation. It happens with everything...I see computer stories on the news or in newspapers all the time that are completely and utterly inaccurate. I'm sure it is the same way with most things and we only notice it b/c it involves our area of knowledge. It was pretty pathetic, on the BBC they were reporting on Boeing's new "767 Dreamliner". I mean come on, at least go on their website for pete's sake...

I got a screenshot from an internet site today with a picture of the Beluga loading a fuselage section into it....
The caption was "The Beluga can also transport rockets"

Don't get me wrong, there are some great aviation journalists out there who are passionate about aviation (like most on here) but at times I feel those who aren't so sure about the matter should get someone to double check...

Each of us has an interest in commercial aviation and many of us - particularly those of us who work in another industry - have one or more other areas of special expertise. Outside of the specialist press very few reporters or editors have a specialised knowledge either in commercial aviation or, indeed, our other areas of special expertise. Mistakes are therefore likely.

For subjects of importance to the individual publication - like politics in national newspapers - the publication will employ specialist staff. Here one can reasonably expect articles to be factually correct. But if you work in sprogett manufacturing and you read an article on sprogett production in a newspaper you are almost certainly going to find a number of inaccuracies and probably some bad errors.

Moral? Do not always believe what you read!

But do not be too hard on the reporter who is reporting on the proposed UK government inquiry into supermarkets at this momemt and will move on to reporting on US legacy airlines with Chapter 11 Protection next.

The media makes mistakes, just as we all do. Personally, I find it quite amusing that they mistake a B747 for a DC10 or what have you. What really gets my blood boiling with the media is how they take a minor inncident, blow it way out of porportion, call it "Breaking News" and try to scare the general public out of their wits.